Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/205/2015

M/s.S.Ethirajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr.B.A.Kothandaraman - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.R.Pandian

23 Aug 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 29.04.2015

Date of Reservation      : 20.07.2022

Date of Order               : 23.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                :  MEMBER  I 

                        THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,         : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.205 /2015

TUESDAY, THE 23^rd DAY OF AUGUST 2022

Mr. S. Ethirajan,

Old No. 4, New No.8,

Durairaj Street,

Devaraj Nagar,

Chennai - 600 093.                                                                                                                                                              ... Complainant                   

 

..Vs..

Mr. B.A. Kothandaraman,

Chairman and Managing Director,

M/s. Viveks Ltd,

No. 150 [New No. 68],

Luz Church Road,

Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

 

The Senior Manager - Customer Care,

M/s. Viveks Service Centre,

133, Royapettah High Road,

Mylapore,

Chennai - 600 004.                                                                                                                                                         ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. R. Pandian

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : M/s. K.P.C. Mogan

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Opposite Parties and having treated the written arguments of the Complainant as oral arguments, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with necessary interest as admissible upto the date of payment and replace a new 1.5 ton LG Air Conditioner to the Complainant.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant who came across the wide range of product and best customer services of the respondent concern visited purchase a Air Condition to his residence. He purchased LG brand 1.5 ton capacity Air Conditioner vide bill No.11511300842 dated 19.04.2013 at Vadapalani showroom at the cost of Rs.35,000/-. Since the date of installation, the Air Conditioner was not working properly and the equipment kept failing as the water was dripping inside the room and the room in which the equipment was installed never turned cool. He   had repeatedly contacted the service manager and customer care manager of M/s. Viveks Ltd., and kept informed about the failure of the equipment over phone and email. The service technicians from Viveks Service Centre came up many a times to attend the fault which was in vain. Further twice the equipment was taken to the service centre at the cost of our client, which was returned in the same condition.  service technicians from M/s. Viveks service centre attempted to attend the fault on 25.10.2013 at 07.00 pm-08.15 pm, 22.02.2014 at 01.30 pm-02.15 pm,  06.03.2014 at 06.45 pm-07.30 pm, the product failed to work within its warranty/guarantee period itself as the air conditioner was purchased on 19.04.2013. Further the Complainant allege that equipment was still under warranty/guarantee when the product failed to work, where the service technician had collected Rs.250/- as service charge for attending the fault on 17.03.2014, but whereas the air conditioner failed to work within 2 months. The very purpose of purchasing the Air conditioner was to beat the heat during the summer season and the Complainant opted to purchase in the month of April, whereas the vital purpose of the purchase turned failed, as he was forced to face the heat during the peak summer season. The opposite parties had sought to provide the information regarding his bill number and date, which was also provided by him for necessary action, whereas till date no development has taken place. He had requested the opposite parties to replace the equipment as it was under the warranty period enabling him to enjoy the purpose of purchase of the Air conditioner by spending hefty pocket, whereas due to the deficient and inefficient act of opposite parties, he had to suffer huge loss. He had caused a legal notice to the opposite parties dated 08.10.2014 demanding replacement of the air conditioner along with compensation, whereas the Opposite Party had given an evasive reply dated 03.11.2014 without heeding his demand and further seeks to take the air conditioner again to their service centre for mending, that too at the cost of the Complainant, which actually will not serve the purpose and which ultimately depicts the scant regard shown by the opposite parties towards the consumer/customer/Complainant. Hence the complaint.

 

3.Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties in brief is as follows:-

It is admitted that the Complainant has purchased one LG brand Air Conditioner from the Showroom of the first Opposite Party situated at Vadapalani. But the other allegations stated in the complaint that the machine was not working properly from, the date of installation and the equipment kept failing as the water was dripping inside the room and the room in which the equipment was installed never turned cool are not admitted. It is not admitted that the service technicians came up many a times to attend the fault which was in vain. On receipt of the complaint from the Complainant the service technician inspected the machine and not able to find the cause for the water leaking problems in the machine and informed the Complainant that the machine needs to be taken to workshop for necessary monitoring inspection and make required rectification. But Complainant not inclined to permit this Opposite Party to attend the machine and started to ask replacement. The machine was taken to the service center twice for the purpose of water dripping problem is denied as false. This Opposite Party submits that the machine was taken to Opposite Party's workshop for the purpose of replacement of condenser coil only and not for the purpose of water dripping as alleged by the Complainant. The narrations stated in para 6 of the complaint are the dates stated to be attended by the service technicians belonging to this Opposite Party. All the visits made by this  Opposite  Party  were  with  regard  to  Indore  flare  leakage  problem,

general service, condenser coil replacement, etc and not for water dripping problem alone. The further allegations that the product failed to work within its warranty/guarantee period is denied as false. The problem of water splashing can be set right and the Complainant not permitted to set right the problem and adamantly demanding replacement which is unwarranted. The further allegations that the service technician of this Opposite Party has collected Rs.250/- as service charge is not admitted, as it is the transportation charges for collecting the machine to Opposite Party's workshop. The further allegations that the vital purpose of the purchase turned failed is not admitted by this Opposite Party and the Complainant is the cause for not setting right the problem that exists in the Air conditioner. This Opposite Party submits that the information with regard to the bill number and date have been collected from the Complainant for the purpose of taking it to the LG Electronics, the manufacturer of the product, as requested by the Complainant. The manufacturer has also instructed this Opposite Party to take necessary steps for rectification of the fault. Even after receipt of this instructions from the manufacturer, this Opposite Party again contacted the Complainant for attending the machine. But the Complainant was very much adamant in not allowing this Opposite Party to remove and take to its workshop and he was persistent in demanding replacement of new Air Conditioner. The allegations narrated demanding replacement of equipment is unwarranted as the machine is not affected by

any fault which cannot be set right once for all. Therefore  the colour of deficient and inefficient act cannot be coated against the Opposite Party. The allegations that this Opposite Party had given an evasive reply is denied as false. This Opposite Party, through its reply letter to the legal notice of the Complainant, has requested the Complainant to allow the Opposite Party to remove and take to its service center for necessary rectification of fault in the machine. But the Complainant by throughway the request of the Opposite Party, has approached this Honorable court. This Opposite Party, being an authorized service provider, can be demanded for service of the machine. For any request of replacement of defective machine, it could be placed before the manufacturer. Therefore, complaint is not maintainable for non joinder of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer of the product.  There is no cause of action arose in this complaint against both the Opposite Party and the alleged cause of action is false. Both the Opposite Party state that the Complainant is not entitled to any or more of the reliefs prayed in the Complaint.  Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

2.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-9  were marked.   

The Opposite Parties submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Parties, no documents were marked.  

5.     Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed in the complaint and for any other relief/s?

Point no 1:-  

         It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had purchased LG brand 1.5 ton Air conditioner from the 1^st Opposite Party vide bill no.11511300842 dated 19.04.2013 for a sum of Rs.35000/-.

It is also not in dispute that the said product was at fault immediately after purchase as the same was not working properly and water leakage issues which dripped inside the room and never turned cool.

The dispute arose when the above said issue was not rectified inspite of several services made by the 2^nd Opposite Party being the service centre of the 1^st Opposite Party and the Opposite parties failed to replace the product inspite of the demands and requests made by the Complainant. 

On careful reading of the complaint, written version and the exhibits marked in support of the complaint, from perusal of Ex.A-1 it is evident that the product was purchased by the Complainant from the 1^st Opposite Party. Ex.A-2 to A-6 being the service maintenance report dated 25.10.2013, 22.02.2014, 06.03.2014, 17.03.2014 and 31.05.2014, respectively, on perusal of the said exhibits it is clear that the issues reported could not be rectified by the 2^nd Opposite Party. From the perusal of Ex.A-7, the mail dated 02.06.2014 sent to 1^st Opposite Party  customer  care  explaining  the

happenings from the date of purchase with a demand to replace the said product as found in page no.7 of Ex.A-7, and also from page no.8 of Ex.A-7, it is clear that the 2^nd Opposite Party had taken the product to their service centre for carrying out the repairs at the cost of the Complainant, though the said product was under warranty period. As the repairs were not carried out, the Complainant was constrained to cause a legal notice dated 18.09.2014 sent to the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties, as found in Ex.A-8 with a demand to replace the said product and for compensation, on receipt of the same the Opposite parties sent a reply dated 03.11.2014 denying the allegations with a request to allow them to take the product to their service centre for carrying out the repairs, which was marked as Ex.A-9.

     On discussion made above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the 2^nd Opposite Party being the service centre of the 1^st Opposite Party had negligently failed to rectify the issues in the product of the Complainant, inspite of several attempts made. Therefore we are of the considered view that the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties had committed deficiency of service. Accordingly, Point no.1 is answered.  

Point No.2:-

As discussed and decided in Point No.1 in favour of the Complainant,  the Complainant is entitled for replacement of a New 1.5 ton L.G Air Conditioner and for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service and

mental agony and also for a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost. Accordingly Point No.2 is answered.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to replace a New 1.5 ton L.G Air Conditioner and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a  sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards costs, to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing compliance  the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of this order till the date of realisation.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 23^rd of August 2022.  

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	19.04.2013	Bill No.11511300842
Ex.A2	25.10.2013	Service maintenance report issued by the Opposite Parties
Ex.A3	22.02.2014	Service Maintenance Report issued by the Opposite Parties
Ex.A4	06.03.2014	Service Maintenance Report issued by the Opposite Parties
Ex.A5	17.03.2014	Service Maintenance Report issued by the Opposite Parties
Ex.A6	31.05.2014	Service Maintenance Report issued by the Opposite Parties
Ex.A7	02.06.2014	Email communications by the Complainant
Ex.A8	18.09.2014	Legal notice by the Complainant
Ex.A9	03.11.2014	Reply notice by the Opposite Parties

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

 

NIL

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT